Tees Transporter Bridge and a former working men’s club in Barrow-in-Furness among sites at risk of decay or neglectTeesside’s Transporter Bridge, a disinfecting station in Hackney and a former working men’s club in Barrow-in-Furness have been included on a list ringing alarm bells for Victorian and Edwardian heritage.The Victorian Society has published its annual top 10 endangered buildings list, intended as a way of drawing national attention to at-risk places in England and Wales. Continue re
Tees Transporter Bridge and a former working men’s club in Barrow-in-Furness among sites at risk of decay or neglect
Teesside’s Transporter Bridge, a disinfecting station in Hackney and a former working men’s club in Barrow-in-Furness have been included on a list ringing alarm bells for Victorian and Edwardian heritage.
The Victorian Society has published its annual top 10 endangered buildings list, intended as a way of drawing national attention to at-risk places in England and Wales.
Securities litigation is undergoing a quiet but consequential transformation. The rise of artificial intelligence and a shifting regulatory environment are changing not only the types of claims being brought, but also how plaintiffs plead cases, how regulators shape and enforce rules, and how companies manage litigation risk. Together, these forces are challenging traditional approaches that no longer fit the realities of today’s market.As these dynamics evolve, companies and their advisors are
Securities litigation is undergoing a quiet but consequential transformation. The rise of artificial intelligence and a shifting regulatory environment are changing not only the types of claims being brought, but also how plaintiffs plead cases, how regulators shape and enforce rules, and how companies manage litigation risk. Together, these forces are challenging traditional approaches that no longer fit the realities of today’s market.
As these dynamics evolve, companies and their advisors are being pushed to rethink disclosure practices, litigation strategy, and the role of experts earlier than ever in the process. Precision, innovation, and the ability to translate complex financial and market data into defensible positions have become increasingly critical, particularly at the motion to dismiss stage, where cases are often won or lost outright.
We sat down with Eric Poer, Managing Director at Secretariat International, an expert advisory and disputes consulting firm whose professionals have worked on some of the most impactful matters across the globe, to discuss the changing landscape of securities litigation.
Q: Can you tell us about Secretariat and your role within the firm?
A: Secretariat is a leading advisory firm that specializes in disputes and investigations with more than 700 experts and advisors worldwide. Our experts have been engaged by most of the Am Law 100 law firms and have completed more than 10,000 engagements on six continents. We operate strategically, growing by selectively hiring top-tier professionals who not only bring deep subject matter expertise, but also fit a highly collaborative and entrepreneurial culture.
I now lead Secretariat’s securities litigation and complex financial disputes practices. Our work sits at the intersection of financial markets, regulation, and litigation, supporting clients in matters where the factual, economic, and accounting issues are both highly technical and highly consequential. I have practiced in this area for more than 20 years and have worked on some of the largest, most complex, and highest-profile securities litigation and investigations matters in the country, including the Wells Fargo sales practices investigation, one of Apple’s most significant securities litigation matters, the recent Rivian Automotive securities litigation related to its IPO, and many more.
Q: What types of clients and matters does your practice focus on?
A: Our primary clients are Am Law 100 law firms and directors and officers facing regulatory inquiries, enforcement actions, or securities litigation. We are most often engaged in situations where the issues are technically demanding and time-sensitive, and where early strategic decisions can materially affect the trajectory of a case. From an industry perspective, we routinely work with large, global financial institutions and many of the most highly regarded Fortune 100 technology companies in the world.
The matters we typically work on include securities class actions, derivative litigation, complex financial disputes, including damages assessments, and forensic investigations involving disclosure issues, market activity, valuation, or transaction-related allegations. Increasingly, we are brought in early, often before a motion to dismiss is even filed. At this early stage, we help to shape defense strategy before positions harden and costs escalate.
Q: What differentiates your securities litigation practice from others in the market?
A: The core differentiator is our expert-led, technology-enabled team model. We operate with a lean, deeply experienced group of professionals who have worked together for more than 15 years. That continuity matters. It allows us to move quickly, communicate efficiently, and apply judgment that has been refined across decades of dealing with similar matters.
Our size also enables us to take a highly strategic and tactical approach. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all framework, we tailor our analysis to the specific allegations and strategic objectives of each case. We are technology-enabled, but expert-driven—the tools support the analysis, not the other way around.
Just as important, we are comfortable going very narrow and deep. In many cases, the most impactful issues hinge on a very specific nuance and our clients require niche expertise to support their needs. We have access to more than 1 million industry experts that we frequently partner with to supplement our accounting, economic, and financial experts. Our experience allows us to surface those nuanced issues early and help clients focus their resources where they matter most.
Q: How have client expectations in securities litigation evolved in recent years?
A: Securities litigation is quickly changing—both procedurally and due to technological shifts.
Settlements are increasingly growing, with median settlement value in 2025 at a 10-year high, particularly if a matter survives a motion to dismiss. As a result, clients increasingly expect advisors who can help them win—or significantly narrow—the case early. There is far less appetite for broad, unfocused analysis. Instead, clients want precision, credibility, and a clear articulation of why certain theories fail under scrutiny at the pleadings stage.
This has elevated the importance of targeted financial and market analysis and the ability to respond creatively and credibly when translating complex technical issues into persuasive, defensible positions under intense judicial scrutiny.
In addition, clients increasingly expect that experts know how to use AI effectively and responsibly. Deliverables that rely on generative or analytical AI must meet rigorous and defensible standards—with robust human oversight.
Q: What major enforcement and regulatory shifts are influencing securities litigation this year?
A: One of the most notable shifts is the increased role of state attorneys general in enforcement activity. As federal enforcement priorities have shifted and staffing reductions have affected agencies like the SEC and DOJ, state attorneys general appear poised to step in to fill perceived gaps. That dynamic introduces new risks for companies that may have historically focused their compliance and litigation strategies on federal regulators.
At the same time, the SEC itself has undergone significant changes, with more anticipated. These developments are creating uncertainty, but also opportunity, for public companies as they reassess disclosure practices, governance structures, and litigation risk.
Q: What about arbitration provisions as a way to limit litigation?
A: One of the more interesting and potentially transformative developments is the emerging opportunity for public companies to enforce arbitration provisions that could limit or eliminate securities class actions as we know them. The SEC has taken a more neutral stance on arbitration clauses in registration statements, opening the door for companies to revisit this issue.
What’s especially significant is that costs for companies and insurers could skyrocket, while opportunities for plaintiffs could diminish. Securities class actions in their current form, often lasting for several years, are still far more efficient than dozens or even hundreds of individual arbitration claims, each requiring separate defense.
It is an area that warrants close attention, as future challenges and regulatory responses will shape how viable this strategy ultimately becomes.
Q: We haven’t really talked about the focus that seems to be on everyone’s minds these days: artificial intelligence. How is AI influencing securities litigation?
A: AI-related securities claims have emerged as one of the most significant recent developments. Plaintiffs are increasingly focusing on alleged misrepresentations about companies’ AI capabilities, deployment, or strategic importance. Many of these cases revolve around what has been described as “AI-washing,” where companies are alleged to have overstated the sophistication or impact of AI initiatives.
Plaintiffs are testing how courts will evaluate statements about AI that may be aspirational, forward-looking, or grounded in rapidly changing technical realities. As a result, we are seeing that AI-related filings generally have been dismissed at a lower rate than other filings but are settled at a higher rate.
Outside of trends in securities class actions, my personal view is that we need to be leaning into AI or we’ll be left behind. At Secretariat, we are actively pursuing and implementing opportunities to utilize AI in a smart and responsible way.
We like to equate AI to a first-year analyst. It’s smart and capable but needs to be checked for accuracy and reasoning. So yes, we are always looking for ways to deploy advanced technology to benefit our clients, but that technology is always supported by expert judgment and never replaces it; the stakes are simply too high in our business to do otherwise.
Q: AI is certainly an increasingly litigated area. What other topics are seeing increased litigation?
A: Crypto-related disputes and enforcement remain a growing area. In 2025, there were 14 cases with crypto-related claims, 75% more than in 2024. In addition, healthcare-related filings always account for a significant portion of securities litigation filings, and this continued in 2025, with healthcare-related filings accounting for more new filings than any other sector. Each of these trends is likely to continue in 2026.
Conclusion on the Securities Litigation Landscape
Although the SEC has shifted from its regulation by enforcement era, it is evident that private litigation and state attorneys general will fill at least some of the enforcement void. In addition, the potential for public companies to enforce arbitration provisions could have a transformative effect on securities litigation as we know it; however, at this time, it is not clear that a significant number of companies have or will adopt such provisions. Undoubtedly, this year will be a year of change in the securities litigation space.
If you took one long-haul flight each year for the past decade, the world would eventually pay about $25,000 for it. You won’t see this charge on your credit card, but the cost shows up somewhere—maybe as a hotter field with less rice, a stronger hurricane, or a factory forced to close on days that are too hot to work. This estimate comes from a Nature study published in March 2026 by researchers at Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley. They created a new way to link damage from s
If you took one long-haul flight each year for the past decade, the world would eventually pay about $25,000 for it. You won’t see this charge on your credit card, but the cost shows up somewhere—maybe as a hotter field with less rice, a stronger hurricane, or a factory forced to close on days that are too hot to work. This estimate comes from a Nature study published in March 2026 by researchers at Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley. They created a new way to link damage from specific emissions to certain places and years.
That $25,000 figure is based on the social cost of carbon, a dollar estimate of the harm caused by releasing one ton of carbon dioxide into the air. While it might seem abstract, it is one of the most important numbers in American policy. It helps decide if a fuel-economy rule is worth it and influences permits for pipelines and power plants. Over the last four presidential administrations, this number has been raised, lowered, removed, and brought back. What we think a ton of carbon costs today affects how much the country is willing to do about climate change in the future.
What Is the Social Cost of Carbon?
Think of the cost of carbon like a garbage bill, the metaphor the authors of the Nature study use. When you put trash on the curb, someone has to pick it up, haul it away, and store it somewhere. You pay for that service. Carbon dioxide works the same way, except no one sends an invoice—it’s more like using a credit card, the bill for which your children or great-grandchildren will eventually pay.
Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries, quietly heating the planet, damaging crops, intensifying storms, and wearing down economies. Somebody, somewhere, eventually pays. The social cost of carbon is an attempt to figure out how much.
The number comes from combining climate science with economics. Researchers model how one extra ton of CO₂ affects global temperatures over the next century or two, then estimate how those temperature changes damage human health, farm yields, labor productivity, property, and economic growth. They add up the losses and express them in today’s dollars.
Two technical choices drive almost every disagreement about the final number:
Global versus domestic damages. Should the United States count the damage that occurs in India, Brazil, or Bangladesh from American emissions? Carbon mixes in the atmosphere — a ton released in Ohio warms the planet the same as a ton released in Mumbai — so the economic case for global accounting is strong. The political case for domestic-only accounting is that the US government works for Americans.
The discount rate. This is the trickiest piece. Economists “discount” future damages to express them in present-day dollars. A higher discount rate makes future harm look cheap today; a lower one makes it look expensive. Using a 7% discount rate, $1 trillion in climate damage in 2100 is worth only about $4 billion today. Using 3%, the same damage is worth about $86 billion. Same science, same damage, twenty times the present value.
That second choice, how much weight to give your grandchildren’s losses compared to your own savings, is where climate economics becomes a moral question.
That decision created a legal obligation. If federal agencies wanted to write rules that survived court review, they had to put a price on carbon. They just did not yet have one they could agree on.
2009–2016: The Obama Administration Sets the Framework
In 2009, President Obama convened an Interagency Working Group of federal economists and scientists. In 2010, the group published its first official estimate of the social cost of carbon: $21 per ton of CO₂.
In the following years, as climate models were updated, the estimate rose, reaching about $50 per ton (2020 dollars) by the end of the Obama years. This value was based on a 3% discount rate and global damages.
That framework, which involved interagency process and peer-reviewed models with global scope, was used in more than 65 federal rules and 81 subrules between 2008 and 2016. It shaped appliance efficiency standards, power plant emission limits, fuel-economy requirements, and rules governing methane leaks from oil and gas infrastructure. A higher social cost of carbon justified stricter rules. A lower one did not.
2017–2020: The First Trump Administration Rewrites the Math
That lower number was, as Resources for the Future explained, “too low to make climate policies economically justifiable.” Rules that had provided a cost-benefit analysis supporting strict emissions rules under Obama suddenly no longer did so. The Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of Obama’s climate policy, was repealed partly on the grounds that the climate benefits recalculated with the lower number no longer exceeded the costs. According to Scientific American, the change in the social cost of carbon was “determinative” in at least half a dozen petroleum-sector rollbacks during the first Trump term. Simply, it gave emitters an easy out.
2021–2024: Biden Restores, Then Raises, The Price Sharply
Biden reinstated the working group and set an interim value of about $51 per ton, adjusted for inflation. Legal challenges from some states were dismissed.
In November 2023, EPA set a new central estimate for the social cost of carbon: $190 per ton for 2020 emissions, rising to $230 by 2030 and $308 by 2050. This increase drew on updated climate science, new economic models, a lower discount rate of 2%, and two decades of scientific progress clarifying warming’s impact on economic growth, climate-driven mortality, and previously understated risks.
Other governments took note. Canada adopted the updated EPA number in 2023. Germany adapted the underlying model for its own analyses in 2024.
2025: The Second Trump Administration Tries to Erase It
On his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” which disbanded the Interagency Working Group, withdrew its estimates, and directed EPA to consider eliminating the social cost of carbon from federal permitting and regulatory decisions entirely. The order called the metric “marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation.”
In March 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency would “overhaul” the social cost of carbon. In May 2025, a follow-up executive memorandum directed federal agencies to stop factoring climate-related economic damage into their regulations and permitting decisions, except where statute requires it.
Where agencies are still legally obligated to put a number on it, the administration has settled on an interim estimate of as little as $1 per ton of CO₂, a return to the first Trump administration’s methodology, with domestic-only damages and higher discount rates. The companion social cost of methane dropped from $1,470 per ton to $58. In July 2025, the White House guidance went further, instructing agencies that any required analysis should be limited to “the minimum consideration required to meet a statutory requirement” and, where possible, should not be monetized at all. The practical effect: $1 per ton on paper, $0 in most decisions.
The cycle is now in its third full reversal since 2008. Each time the number changes, so does the federal government’s willingness to regulate emissions.
What the New Research Adds
The new study in Nature does something the federal estimates have never done well: it separates past damage from future damage, and it assigns both to specific emitters. Their framework treats every ton of CO₂ as an asset that pays out negative returns; it’s a garbage bill that keeps accruing interest. Using that framework, they found three things that reshape the conversation.
A ton of CO₂ emitted in 1990 has already caused about $180 in global damages by 2020. That same ton will cause an additional $1,840 in damages between now and 2100 — 10 times more. Using the authors’ conservative assumptions, which use a 2% discount rate with damages capped at 2100, the social cost of carbon for a ton emitted today is approximately $1,013. That is more than five times the Biden EPA’s $190 estimate, and higher estimates are possible under longer time horizons or lower discount rates.
Settling the bill for climate damage that has already happened would only cover a small fraction of the damage still to come from the same emissions. Past payments do not clear past debts.
Individuals and Corporations Run Up the Carbon Bill
The study also puts numbers on the kinds of choices that fill everyday life.
One extra long-haul flight per year for a decade produces roughly $25,000 in future discounted damages by 2100.
Switching from a meat-heavy to a vegetarian diet for a decade avoids about $6,000 in future damages.
Installing and using a heat pump for a decade results in an additional $6,000 in avoided damage.
Cutting driving by 10%, another $6,000 less future cost.
At the corporate scale, the numbers are staggering. Emissions from Saudi Aramco’s fossil fuel production between 1988 and 2015 are estimated to cause $64 trillion in cumulative discounted damages through 2100. ExxonMobil’s comparable share: $29 trillion. These are bigger than the annual GDP of most countries.
Today’s Cost, Tomorrow’s Reality
The social cost of carbon can feel like a number on a page in a regulatory document. It is not. It is a bridge between the world you are living in now and the world you will inherit.
When the federal government uses a low social cost of carbon, or no number at all, it writes rules that allow more emissions. More emissions mean a hotter atmosphere, which means stronger storms, longer fire seasons, lower crop yields, higher air conditioning bills, and more days when outdoor work becomes dangerous. Those consequences do not arrive as a lump sum in 2100.
They arrive gradually, starting now, and compounding in the form of flood and wildfire damage, biodiversity loss, and even defense spending to prevent immigration. The Nature researchers emphasize that their estimates are almost certainly too low because GDP damage functions do not capture losses of biodiversity, loss of cultural homelands, harm to mental health, or many slow-moving impacts such as sea level rise.
When the federal government uses a high social cost of carbon, it writes rules that prevent emissions. Those rules have costs today, sometimes real ones, paid by workers in fossil fuel industries, by consumers adjusting to new standards, by companies retooling their operations. The social cost of carbon does not eliminate those costs. It weighs them against costs that will otherwise fall on other people, in other places, at other times. That weighing is a choice about who counts.
The history traced here is, in that sense, a history of that choice, and none of those decisions are final. Courts have repeatedly ruled that federal agencies cannot treat the value of carbon-emissions reductions as zero. The 2008 ruling that gave rise to this framework is still on the books. Whatever the current administration does, the legal obligation to account for climate damages in cost-benefit analysis remains, and the science underpinning the newer, higher estimates continues to strengthen.
KUALA LUMPUR, April 27 — The ringgit edged higher against the US dollar but was traded mostly lower against other major currencies in early trade on Monday amid subdued market sentiment ahead of the US Federal Reserve meeting later this week, said an analyst.At 8.14 am, the local currency was marginally higher at 3.9610/9680 against the greenback, compared with 3.9630/9670 at Friday’s close.SPI Asset Management managing partner Stephen Innes said the foreign exch
KUALA LUMPUR, April 27 — The ringgit edged higher against the US dollar but was traded mostly lower against other major currencies in early trade on Monday amid subdued market sentiment ahead of the US Federal Reserve meeting later this week, said an analyst.
At 8.14 am, the local currency was marginally higher at 3.9610/9680 against the greenback, compared with 3.9630/9670 at Friday’s close.
SPI Asset Management managing partner Stephen Innes said the foreign exchange market is currently subdued, a typical pattern ahead of a US Federal Reserve meeting as traders assess whether the policy guidance will lean hawkish or dovish.
The Federal Open Market Committee meeting will be held on April 28 and 29.
Innes said positioning has narrowed and conviction has eased, with market participants largely holding back until there is greater clarity.
On the geopolitical side, Innes said the lack of progress in the Iran peace talks is acting as a mild drag on risk sentiment and likely capped what could have been a broader dollar sell-off earlier in the week.
“That said, unless we see a meaningful military escalation that drives oil materially higher, the impact should stay contained. For now, I’d expect a modest bias toward ringgit appreciation, but nothing aggressive.
“The broader setup still leans toward range trading, as the dollar is unlikely to weaken meaningfully with oil holding around current levels. That should keep the downside in US dollar contained, limiting any sustained ringgit rally,” he told Bernama.
At the opening, the ringgit depreciated against a basket of major currencies.
It fell against the British pound to 5.3529/3624 from 5.3429/3483 at Friday’s close, declined against the Japanese yen to 2.4831/4876 from Friday’s 2.4808/4834 and eased against the euro to 4.6379/6461 from Friday’s 4.6312/6358.
The local currency traded mixed against Asean peers.
It eased against the Singapore dollar to 3.1020/1078 from 3.1009/1043 at Friday’s close, and was slightly higher against the Thai baht to 12.2181/2465 from 12.2183/2363.
It edged up against the Indonesian rupiah at 229.9/230.4 from 230.0/230.3 and was almost flat versus the Philippine peso at 6.52/6.54 from 6.52/6.53. — Bernama
With National Volunteer Week now underway, it’s an ideal time to reflect on the role people play in protecting Ontario’s biodiversity. Community science is one meaningful way to get involved. And as spring returns to Ontario, pollinators begin to reappear in fields, forests, wetlands, and gardens making them a natural group of species to observe for community science programs.
While these sightings may feel routine, they are becoming less predictable for many species. Pollinator populations a
With National Volunteer Week now underway, it’s an ideal time to reflect on the role people play in protecting Ontario’s biodiversity. Community science is one meaningful way to get involved. And as spring returns to Ontario, pollinators begin to reappear in fields, forests, wetlands, and gardens making them a natural group of species to observe for community science programs.
While these sightings may feel routine, they are becoming less predictable for many species. Pollinator populations are declining due to habitat loss, pesticide exposure (especially neonicotinoids), disease, invasive species, and climate change. These threats are reshaping where species can survive and fragmenting habitats that once supported stable populations. Getting involved as a volunteer observer is one of the most direct ways to support pollinator conservation in Ontario.
Pollinators — such as bees, butterflies, moths, and even birds — are important indicators of ecosystem health. They support plant reproduction and help sustain food webs across the province and country. Because many species depend on specific plants or habitats, even small environmental changes can have significant impacts.
This also makes pollinators especially valuable for community science. Each observation helps researchers track biodiversity changes across Ontario over time.
Pollinators at Risk in Ontario
Under the Endangered Species Act, 2007, many species at risk received legal protection. However, Ontario’s new Species Conservation Act, 2025, introduced through Bill 5, changes how species are protected and may reduce protections for some, including certain pollinators.
Monarch (Endangered in Canada / Special Concern in Ontario)
Herbicides and insecticides reduce milkweed, a crucial piece of the Monarch’s breeding habitat. Their long-distance migration also exposes them to threats such as habitat loss and declining wildflower availability.
Rusty-patched Bumble Bee (Endangered)
Once common in southern Ontario, this species has declined sharply. The last confirmed observation records in Canada come from two Ontario Parks, Pinery Provincial Park (2009) and St. Williams Conservation Reserve (2000).
Mottled Duskywing (Endangered)
This butterfly depends on rare oak woodlands and plants such as the New Jersey Tea and Prairie Redroot. These habitats are limited and fragmented, making populations vulnerable.
An early spring pollinator of wild plants and crops such as blueberries and apples. This bumble bee’s abundance has decreased in Ontario and is associated with habitat loss, pesticide exposure, climate change, and disease.
Contribute your Sightings
If you spot these or other species, you can contribute to community science projects:
You can also join the global community of iNaturalist users to share and verify observations. The Natural Heritage Information Centre has a Rare Species of Ontario project.
The Ethics of Observation
Observe wildlife responsibly to avoid disturbance and ensure useful data. Follow A Nature Viewer’s Code of Ethics and be aware that many species are protected under Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Canada’s Species at Risk Act.
Every observation matters. Whether you notice pollinators in your garden, birds overhead, or frogs in a wetland, your sightings contribute to a better understanding of Ontario’s ecosystems—and how they are changing.
At a friend’s cottage I recently uncovered a copy of The Reptiles of Ontario published in 1939 by the Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology. It’s an artifact that thrills with the mention of the extraordinary nature once found near human settlement.
It says that, in 1877, a timber rattlesnake, a species now extirpated from Ontario, was discovered a mile from Niagara Falls and even into the late 1930s this large snake—which can be five feet or longer—was found at Niagara Glen.
The book’s most uplifting section is devoted to the Massasauga rattlesnake. The author, E.B.S. Logier, offers it a measure of empathy. In fact, he hints that it has intrinsic value.
This is extraordinary given that it’s long been reviled in the province. From the time of early settlement on, many considered it dangerous. Elizabeth Simcoe, wife of the first lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, wrote in her diary in the 1790s that 700 rattlesnakes were killed during the building of a mill on the Humber River.
Logier laments that the creature is rarely seen and adds, “There will be multitudes of serious-minded people in the generations yet to come who will wish to see and study rattlesnakes…so there is a responsibility incumbent on us who are living today, and who by the very nature of the case are trustees of an estate to be passed on, not to wantonly destroy any living thing, regardless of whether from our point of view it is a desirable creature or not.”
Logier says we should protect rattlers because it would benefit humans: future Ontarians may want to experience them. But by urging their preservation even if they aren’t desirable ‘from our point of view’ he also suggests wildlife has inherent worth. It’s his use of ‘our point of view’ — coming decades before the modern environmental movement — that’s impressive here.
Further, in calling us “trustees of an estate”, he implies our job is not to exploit the natural world but to safeguard it. This echoes the message and conservation work of Ontario Nature, which reminds us that the environment is entrusted to us for future generations, not as something to own, but as something to steward.
Logier isn’t ready to grant the Massasauga constitutional rights (what might be called “security of the serpent”), but he’s gesturing in that direction.
And given he was writing 87 years ago, that’s admirable.
Like many regions across Ontario, West Lake in Prince Edward County is experiencing altered shorelines, habitat fragmentation, and growing development pressure. The 1,903-hectare lake is bordered by the largest freshwater baymouth barrier dune system in the world, found within Sandbanks Provincial Park. West Lake contains a large provincially significant wetland and is home to at least 35 species at risk.
West Lake Community Association (WLCA) is a volunteer non-profit that was formed to engag
Like many regions across Ontario, West Lake in Prince Edward County is experiencing altered shorelines, habitat fragmentation, and growing development pressure. The 1,903-hectare lake is bordered by the largest freshwater baymouth barrier dune system in the world, found within Sandbanks Provincial Park. West Lake contains a large provincially significant wetland and is home to at least 35 species at risk.
West Lake Community Association (WLCA) is a volunteer non-profit that was formed to engage residents and visitors of the small community with the aim of preserving its uniqueness and protecting West Lake’s biodiverse and fragile ecosystems. WLCA is a member of Ontario Nature’s Nature Network.
Understanding the Threats to West Lake
WLCA and Ontario Nature began a collaborative project with a fundamental question: where is the most vulnerable habitat around West Lake? Several major threats are impacting the ecosystems in and around the lake, including shoreline erosion and development pressure. Parts of West Lake are being choked out by rapidly spreading invasive aquatic vegetation. These threats are affecting a variety of species at risk in the area, including Blanding’s turtle, monarch butterfly and bobolink.
Creating Habitat Suitability Models for Species at Risk in West Lake
Through a collaborative effort to identify where species are most vulnerable in West Lake, partners created habitat suitability models to show where important habitat exists and where habitat restoration and stewardship efforts may be needed.
Selecting Species for Our Models
Our project chose four “representative species” whose habitat needs overlap with those of many other plants and animals in the area: butternut, Eastern meadowlark, Eastern musk turtle and pugnose shiner. These species were selected because together they represent a range of terrestrial and aquatic habitat needs. When the models for these four species were combined, it highlighted these specific vulnerable habitats: healthy woodlands that support butternut, open meadows and fields used by Eastern meadowlark, wetlands and shorelines that are needed by Eastern musk turtles, and clean, vegetated water where pugnose shiner live.
Model of suitable habitat for a variety of species in West Lake, Ontario (green indicates the most ideal habitat).
Identifying Important Habitat for Protection and Restoration
Much of the ideal habitat was near the provincially significant West Lake Wetland, along shorelines in the northeast corner of the lake, and within Sandbanks Provincial Park. These areas may represent priority locations where habitat restoration and conservation efforts could be focused.
Sharing the Importance of West Lake with an Interactive Story Map
Engaging with the community and sharing knowledge about West Lake was another goal of the project. WLCA works to encourage interest and engagement among residents to help preserve the uniqueness of the West Lake watershed. They have hosted numerous educational workshops and events, including an annual Environmental Symposium, creating signage to raise awareness of the West Lake Wetland, and partnered with Water Rangers on their Youth Engagement project to train youth on water quality monitoring.
West Lake Community Association and Ontario Nature have published an interactive StoryMap to learn about threats to its ecosystems and recent stewardship projects.
Through collaboration, partners have created the West Lake StoryMap, an interactive mapping tool that blends maps and images to share information about West Lake’s history and ecology. The West Lake StoryMap allows residents and visitors to:
Discover the history of West Lake
Identify threats to its ecosystems
Explore areas vulnerable to flooding, erosion and other natural hazards
Learn about actions WLCA has taken to steward West Lake
By bringing together community perspectives and spatial analyses, the West Lake community has a clear picture of what makes this place special and what threatens its ecosystems. These tools are intended to inspire residents and visitors to get involved in the conservation and protection of West Lake, through shoreline restoration, invasive species removal or by simply learning more about the species that call this area home. With this StoryMap and the continued leadership of the West Lake Community Association, everyone can play a part in keeping West Lake in Prince Edward County healthy for generations to come.
If you or your organization are interested in exploring a conservation or habitat modelling project in Ontario like this, please reach out to Graeme Smith by email at graemes@ontarionature.org or by submitting a request form.
Graeme Smith is the GIS Coordinator at Ontario Nature. He has completed a B.Sc. in biology at Laurentian University and a M.Sc. in environmental and life sciences at Trent University. In his spare time, he enjoys reading, playing board games and exploring the outdoors.
Cathie Coultis is the Chair and Co-Founder of West Lake Community Association. She lives in the hamlet of West Lake with her husband and family dog, enjoys kayaking, cycling, bird watching, gardening, snowshoeing and being active in their rural community.
Wasaga Beach Provincial Park is one of Ontario’s most beloved natural places and provides habitat for endangered piping plovers. Stretching 14 kilometres along the Georgian Bay shoreline, it attracts more than one million visitors annually. Wasaga Beach is the most visited provincial park in the province. Beyond the crowds, the park protects dune ecosystems and habitats that are vital to other at-risk species like the eastern hognose snake, Hill’s thistle and the monarch butterfly.
Now, the Go
Wasaga Beach Provincial Park is one of Ontario’s most beloved natural places and provides habitat for endangered piping plovers. Stretching 14 kilometres along the Georgian Bay shoreline, it attracts more than one million visitors annually. Wasaga Beach is the most visited provincial park in the province. Beyond the crowds, the park protects dune ecosystems and habitats that are vital to other at-risk species like the eastern hognose snake, Hill’s thistle and the monarch butterfly.
Now, the Government of Ontario has removed provincial park protections from a significant portion of the beach and intends to transfer the lands to the Town of Wasaga Beach. This would weaken long-standing protections for these fragile habitats, and the piping plovers that depend on them.
The news came in May 2025, when the Government of Ontario announced the transferring of lands to the Town of Wasaga Beach to develop the waterfront for tourism.
In June, the government posted a proposal on the Environmental Registry (ERO #025-0694) to amend the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. The proposal would remove several parcels of land from Wasaga Beach Provincial Park (roughly 60 hectares). Four of the park’s eight beach areas, including Areas 1 and 2, New Wasaga Beach and Allenwood Beach are included in the transfer. These areas are the most important piping plover habitat at Wasaga Beach.
Public response to the proposal was overwhelmingly opposed, with approximately 98 percent of comments objecting to the removal of beach areas from the park. Key concerns focused on potential environmental impacts, legal and governance issues, and implications for public access and equity.
Despite this feedback, no changes were made to the proposal, citing the Town of Wasaga Beach’s commitments to maintaining public access, and avoiding development on the beach. Lands removed from the park will remain subject to Ontario’s environmental protection laws.
While the province has stated the beaches will remain public, what remains unclear is how these lands and their ecological integrity would be managed once they are no longer under provincial park legislation. These changes come at the hills of over 100 species losing protection under the province’s new Species Conservation Act.
The changes to both land ownership and species at risk laws significantly heighten the endangerment to piping plovers at Wasaga Beach.
Piping plovers are small shorebirds that nest directly on open sand, making them especially vulnerable to disturbance. In Ontario, they are listed as endangered under federal law, and Wasaga Beach has played a critical role in their population recovery. Successful nesting depends on a healthy dune ecosystem, undisturbed beaches, and careful seasonal management – conditions that can be easily disrupted if the lands are developed for tourism.
With decisions about shoreline use, tourism infrastructure, and beach “maintenance” now under municipal authority, activities like beach raking could threaten nesting piping plovers and weaken the dune systems that naturally protect the shoreline from erosion, storms, and climate impacts.
The replacement of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act with the Species Conservation Act narrows the definition of protected habitats, potentially leaving dunes and foraging areas outside nesting sites unprotected. In addition, the Government of Ontario intends to de-list migratory birds all together to “remove duplication for species already receiving federal protections.” To date, the federal government has been reluctant to implement the Species at Risk Act on non-federal lands, which is why complementary provincial legislation was always necessary.
In a 2025 media release, Ontario Nature’s Conservation Policy and Campaigns Director Tony Morris said transferring these areas to the town puts both wildlife and long-standing conservation efforts at risk.
Under municipal ownership, decades-long dune restoration and habitat protections, carried out by Ontario Parks, could disappear. Without the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act in place, Morris says the town would not be required to manage the land for ecological health.
The emergency order request seeks immediate protection for critical piping plover habitat at Wasaga Beach. With the nesting season approaching, conservation groups are calling for action by March 1, 2026, noting that further delays could have serious consequences for the species’ survival and recovery in Ontario.
Call or email your MPP, and elected officials from the Town of Wasaga Beach to ask what they are doing to ensure Wasaga Beach remains a natural shoreline that balances tourism and a healthy ecosystem for the species that call it home.
Believe it or not, Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed with all-party support back in 2007. Subsequently, of course, it was undermined through numerous exemptions and approvals for harmful activities, and now, through Bill 5, the Government of Ontario is tossing it aside completely. It is being replaced by the Species Conservation Act, 2025, (SCA) which is in no way its equal. With a view to eliminating barriers to development, it is claimed the new law will “help speed up project
Under the SCA, no migratory birds, aquatic species or species of special concern will be provincially listed. The rationale for removing protections for migratory birds and aquatic species is that they already receive federal protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). In the case of special concern species, the provincial government is not listing them because they were not subject to “prohibitions under the ESA”. The provincial government is thus abandoning responsibility for 106 out of the 270 or so species currently deemed to be at risk in Ontario.
In 1996, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for wildlife committed to a national accord to protect species at risk by agreeing to “establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada.” Canada and Ontario went a step further in 2011 by developing an Agreement on Species at Risk that commits to coordination and cooperation on preventing species from becoming at risk, as well as protecting and recovery identified species.
The Government of Ontario has abandoned these commitments. Species do not recognize arbitrary political boundaries, and cooperative federalism is absolutely necessary to conserve species at risk, especially amid a biodiversity crisis.
The SARA is not equivalent to the ESA and to date, the federal government has been reluctant to exercise its power under the act on non-federal lands. The Government of Ontario has given no indication that the federal government was engaged on the draft SCA or agreed to step in and provide protections for the migratory birds and aquatic species that have lost provincial protections. On the contrary, Minister McCarthy along with the Alberta Environment Minister senta letter to their federal counterpart in June, 2025 that requested the federal government amend SARA “to respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces”, along with request to weaken other environmental regulations.
Further evidence that SARA is not fit to purpose to make up for the once gold standard provincial ESA, is that the backlog of species needing reassessment by Environment and Climate Change Canada will grow to 574 by the end of 2030. Additionally, as of 2022, the Auditor General of Canada found that 10% of federally listed species did not have recovery strategies or management plans in place as required by the act. Furthermore, of the 409 recovery strategies prepared by 2022, 20% did not identify the species’ critical habitat, which is necessary for protections under SARA.
Despite the Government of Ontario’s claims that the protections under the ESA for migratory birds and aquatic species were duplicative with federal protections, it is clear that SARA and the federal government are not equipped to provide equivalent protections.
Ontario’s weakening of protections for species at risk threatens our long-term well-being. Join us in urging the Government of Ontario to repeal Bill 5.
With another Arctic front heading our way, I find myself thinking about sea otters – specifically, how well suited (literally) they are for winter. Their incredibly thick, waterproof coats must be cozy even on unseasonably chilly days. Sea otters have the densest fur of any animal on earth, which is why they were hunted almost … … Continue reading →
With another Arctic front heading our way, I find myself thinking about sea otters – specifically, how well suited (literally) they are for winter. Their incredibly thick, waterproof coats must be cozy even on unseasonably chilly days. Sea otters have the densest fur of any animal on earth, which is why they were hunted almost … … Continue reading →
Login
